Tolerance cannot be measured in terms of degrees of intolerance. I am essentially opposed to burning books even when they incite others to violence. But freedom is either an absolute or it is conditioned on not inciting others to violence. Anything else is rationalized bigotry.

Search This Blog

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Donald Trump and the Race for the White House

Donald Trump is a populist leader and that makes him dangerous.

His grandstanding and verbal violence are not the way a mature democracy
is supposed to operate. The 55% of his
supporters who are allegedly white and 'working class' plus the undefined
others showing their support for him do not appear to be too concerned with his
incitement.

It would be interesting to know how he will fare with some of those other
constituencies - specifically the 56 million people of Latino/Hispanic descent
living in the USA who
represent 18% of the total US
population, or the 41 million African-American people (13%) or the 29 million
people who are of some other racial profile (9%). The American electorate that
Trump has potentially alienated is equal to some 126 million people or 39% of
the total United States
population!

But let us say that many of those people who are not white and working
class but did support him are the following:

Then that still
leaves us with the big question: Can Trump win when he has alienated so large a
percentage of the North American electorate?

Americans may not
be so politically engaged, but with the uptick in violence that Trump and his
supporters started, I would be worried about any likely escalation creating the
environment for political assassination. And that is something that has
not been seen for many years. I would be more worried about the genie he
has potentially let out of the campaigning bottle than the likelihood of him
being selected as the Republican candidate for the 2016 elections and then
going on to win the election.

Since the end of
the Second World War and with the exception of the Reagan-Bush era (12 years), there
have been no periods of rule by one party, for longer than 8 years.It would be unhealthy for the American
political scene for one party to rule for three consecutive four year
periods.Even if people are really
scared for their future, one party-rule ethically atrophies its most passionate
supporters.The longer a party holds
onto the reigns of power, the less sensitive it becomes to reason and a healthy
civil administration; the longer a party rules, the less it represents its
electorate. Longevity breeds megalomania and becomes a threat to the stability
of the system – any system.

We have already
seen the violent response to Trump’s campaign rally in Chicago. It has the potential to
trigger a cycle of violence. It may convince the Republican Party to take
a stand against him if it believes that his selection would lead to:

a) Defeat in November 2016 and

b) The Republican Party consigned

to the political
wilderness.

There is a view
that as the date for selection approaches, Donald Trump will come up with a
series of grand gestures meant to placate his opponents and derail Hillary
Clinton’s own presidential bid.

Donald Trump has demonstrated his
misogyny. It would be creepy for him to now change direction and be
“nice” to women although that is one constituency he should have tried not to
alienate. In a race between Hillary and Donald even a women who is
critical of the Clintons
may find a vote for Trump politically unpalatable. The African-American
population also needs a grand gesture from Donald Trump. They too have
personally felt the downside to immigration. If he can play to their
insecurity, if he made Dr Carson his vice-presidential running mate and announced
measures that placated the Latino populace, it may convince a sufficiently
significant sector of both groups, if not to vote for him, then at least to
stay away from Hillary. And that too would work in his favor.

People have brought up the “soft bigotry of
low expectations” to which George W. Bush referred, in his speech to the NAACP
in the year 2000. The liberal agenda has not been entirely helpful to the
American poor of any race, religion or ethnicity. A focused attack on the
privileged liberal agenda which can be seen in its extremity as anti-American,
anti-Christian, antisemitic and even, anti-female could also create
opportunities for Donald Trump, not simply to put his democrat opponents on the
defensive but also to bring out voters to stand with him. Bernie Sanders anti-Zionist propaganda and some of Hillary Clinton's unsavory bed-fellows cannot be ignored if they are thrust forward into the credibility debate.

Trump has
opportunities to create a realignment of forces in America. The issue is not
just about party politics. A changed direction is needed because the
malaise providing the impetus for Trumps ascendancy has its genesis in popular
dissatisfaction with much that is happening both in America and across the globe and
crucially, the failure of a credible political response to it. Hollywood cannot mask a
perception of American decline.

Saying that
populist policies are the bread and butter of fascism does not detract from the
popular concerns driving them. If anything, the accusation is elitist
condescension. Put another way, pulling
our hair out because the candidacy choices are unsavory to some of us misses
the reason for Donald Trump’s popularity.

Demagogue, clown, or plodder that he may be,
Trump vocalizes the disquiet felt by large parts of American public opinion on a
wide variety of issues.

2 comments:

Whoever is in the Whitehouse matters less than who is in Congress. Israel is important to me but so is Social Security and healthcare. I'm in my fifties and candidates who take care of me will get my vote.